Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210476 14 Cherry St Area Variance Application ILOR OFFICE USE1 **HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** '�'"�`' CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS ti��� c, (Application#) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS t 7 y CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY (Date received) .A,,,,., SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296 ti TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533 4c9.RFouAT0 '',y www.saratoga-springs.org (Project Title) APPLICATION FOR: INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE, Check if PH Required AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION Staff Review APPLICANT(S)* OWNER(S)(If not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT Peter Sparagna and Margaret Bonaventura John Connie, Esq. Name 14 Cherry St 160 West Ave. Address Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Phone 518-248-1386 518-584-1500 / / / peter.sparagna@gmail.com jrc@sktcclaw.com Email Primary Contact Person: DApplicant 00wner QAttorney/Agent *An applicant must be the property owner, lessee,or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question. Applicant's interest in the premises: IZ Owner 0 Lessee 0 Under option to lease or purchase PROPERTY INFORMATION 14 Cherry Street,Saratoga Springs 165 58 3 7 I. Property Address/Location: NY 12866 Tax Parcel No.: - - (for example: 165.52—4—37) 2018 UR-4 2. Date acquired by current owner: 3.Zoning District when purchased: Single family Residence UR-4 4. Present use of property: 5.Current Zoning District: 6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property? 0 Yes(when? 1998/1999 For what?Area Variances ) la No 7. Is property located within(check all that apply)?: 0 Historic District 0 Architectural Review District 0 500'of a State Park, city boundary,or county/state highway? 8. Brief description of proposed action: Front yard setback variance to enable construction of 50 square foot entry way with a second floor porch. 9. Is there an active written violation for this parcel? 0 Yes 171 No 10. Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun? ❑Yes IZ No 11. Identify the type of appeal you are requesting(check all that apply): 0 INTERPRETATION(p. 2) 0 VARIANCE EXTENSION(p. 2) 0 USE VARIANCE(pp. 3-6) 2 AREA VARIANCE(pp.6-7) Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 2 INTERPRETATION—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): I. Identify the section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation: Section(s) 2. How do you request that this section be interpreted? 3. If interpretation is denied,do you wish to request alternative zoning relief? EYes ❑No 4. If the answer to#3 is"yes,"what alternative relief do you request?❑ Use Variance El Area Variance EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): I. Date original variance was granted: 2. Type of variance granted? El Use ❑Area 3. Date original variance expired: 5. Explain why the extension is necessary.Why wasn't the original timeframe sufficient? When requesting an extension of time for an existing variance,the applicant must prove that the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted have not changed. Specifically demonstrate that there have been no significant changes on the site, in the neighborhood,or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted: Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 3 USE VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): A use variance is requested to permit the following: For the Zoning Board to grant a request for a use variance, an applicant must prove that the zoning regulations create an unnecessary hardship in relation to that property. In seeking a use variance,New York State law requires an applicant to prove all four of the following "tests". I. That the applicant cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property. "Dollars&cents"proof must be submitted as evidence.The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return for the following reasons: A. Submit the following financial evidence relating to this property(attach additional evidence as needed): I) Date of purchase: Purchase amount: $ 2) Indicate dates and costs of any improvements made to property after purchase: Date Improvement Cost 3)Annual maintenance expenses:$ 4)Annual taxes:$ 5)Annual income generated from property:$ 6)City assessed value: $ Equalization rate: Estimated Market Value:$ 7)Appraised Value:$ Appraiser: Date: Appraisal Assumptions: Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 4 B. Has property been listed for sale with DYes If"yes",for how long? the Multiple Listing Service(MLS)? CONo I)Original listing date(s): Original listing price:$ If listing price was reduced,describe when and to what extent: 2) Has the property been advertised in the newspapers or other publications? ❑Yes ❑No If yes, describe frequency and name of publications: 3) Has the property had a"For Sale"sign posted on it? QYes 0 No If yes, list dates when sign was posted: 4) How many times has the property been shown and with what results? 2. That the financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. Difficulties shared with numerous other properties in the same neighborhood or district would not satisfy this requirement. This previously identified financial hardship is unique for the following reasons: Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE S 3. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Changes that will alter the character of a neighborhood or district would be at odds with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood for the following reasons: 4. That the alleged hardship has not been self-created.An applicant(whether the property owner or one acting on behalf of the property owner)cannot claim"unnecessary hardship"if that hardship was created by the applicant,or if the applicant acquired the property knowing(or was in a position to know)the conditions for which the applicant is seeking relief.The hardship has not been self-created for the following reasons: Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSAPPLICATION FORM PAGE 6 AREA VARIANCE—PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING(add additional information as necessary): 1999 Variance for Property The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s) Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested Front yard Setback 5 feet(as per 2 feet 1999 variance) Other: To grant an area variance,the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health,safety,and welfare of the neighborhood and community,taking into consideration the following: I. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have been explored(alternative designs,attempts to purchase land,etc.)and why they are not feasible. Please see attached narrative 2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood character for the following reasons: Please see attached narrative Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 7 3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons: Please see attached narrative 4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons: Please see attached narrative 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created(although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance).Explain whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created: Please see attached narrative Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 8 DISCLOSURE Does any City officer,employee,or family member thereof have a financial interest(as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809)in this application? m No 0 Yes If"yes",a statement disclosing the name,residence and nature and extent of this interest must be filed with this application. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I/we,the property owner(s), or purchaser(s)/lessee(s)under contract, of the land in question, hereby request an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. By the signature(s)attached hereto, I/we certify that the information provided within this application and accompanying documentation is,to the best of my/our knowledge,true and accurate. I/we further understand that intentionally providing false or misleading information is grounds for immediate denial of this application. Furthermore, I/we hereby authorize the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and designated City staff to enter the property associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this appeal. ge-,,,,_ 5 2024 Date: / (ap.liall s_nature) __,/,, r_►r. _ *. l�.�M11�� f �/ Date: ,Se—A/2,4"--)Zi) C� (applicant signature) If applicant is not the currently the owner of the property,the current owner must also sign. Owner Signature: Date: Owner Signature: Date: Revised 01/2021 0c, sof CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS / `I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' r a City Hall - 474 6rouol wa y Sorafvg a S p-r iktgs% N e-w York.12.866 Te1,: 518-587-3550 X2533 cOk-ORATE° www:sa.ra rga—spri,hgy.org INSTRUCTIONS APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AN INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE,AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 1. ELIGIBILITY:To apply for relief from the City's Zoning Ordinance, an applicant must be the property owner(s) or lessee, or have an option to lease or purchase the property in question. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) shall not accept any application for appeal that includes a parcel which has a written violation from the Zoning and Building Inspector that is not the subject of the application. 2. COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS: Applicants are encouraged to work with City staff to ensure a complete application. The ZBA will only consider properly completed applications that contain 1 original and 1 digital version of the following: ❑ Completed application pages I and 8, the pages relating to the requested relief(p. 2 for interpretation or extension, pp. 3-5 for use variance, pp. 6-7 for area variance), and any additional supporting materials/ documentation. **HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** ❑ Completed SEQR Environmental Assessment Form —short or long form as required by action. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seafpartone.pdf O Detailed "to scale" drawings of the proposed project—folded and no larger than 24"x 36". Identify all existing and proposed structures, lot boundaries and dimensions, and the relationship of structures to the lot dimensions. Also, include any natural or manmade features that might affect your property(e.g., drains, ponds, easements, etc.). O Photographs showing the site and subject of your appeal, and its relationship to adjacent properties. 3. APPLICATION FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE): Make checks payable to the "Commissioner of Finance". REFER TO THE CURRENT FEE WORKSHEET INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT. Check City's website(www.saratoga-springs.org) for meeting dates. Revised 01/2021 ZONING BOARD APPEAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT The Zoning Board of Appeals is required to hold a public hearing on each submitted application within ninety(90) days from when it is determined to be properly complete by City staff. City staff will prepare a legal notice for the public hearing and arrange to have the public hearing announcement printed in the legal notice section of a local publication at least 5 days before the hearing. PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION Applicants are required to mail a copy of the public hearing legal notice to all property owners within the following distances from the boundaries of the land in question: Type of variance Distance for property owner notification Use variance 250 feet Area variance & Interpretation 100 feet This notice must be sent at least 7 days but not more than 20 days before the date of the public hearing. City staff will email a copy of the"property owner notification letter"to the applicant.The applicant must then send the notification letter to the nearby property owners.Applicants may not include any other materials in this mailing. The mailing must be certified by the U.S. Post Office. Prior to the public hearing,applicants must present the Post Office "certificates of mailing" to the ZBA. If"certificates of mailing" are not presented prior to the hearing, the hearing will be cancelled. Revised 01/2021 2021 LAND USE BOARD FEE WORKSHEET OPED Fees Type 2021 Fee Application to Zoning Board of Appeals[1][2] TOTAL #VARIANCE Use Variance $1100+$50/app Area Variance-Residential 325 1 $275/var+$50/app+$125 each add'I variance Area Variance-Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use $660/var+$50/app+$200 each add'I variance Interpretations $550+$50/app Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee+$50/app Variance extensions 50%ofAppfee+$50/app Application to Design Review Commission[1] TOTAL #STRUCTURE Demolition I $385 Residential Structures Principal $55 Accessory $55 Extension �$35 Modification $55 Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Structures Sketch $165 Principal $550 Extension $200 Modification $330 Multi-Family,Comm,Mixed-Use Accessory,Signs,Awnings Principal $140 Extension $75 Modification $140 Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee Application to Planning Board[1] TOTAL #STRUCTURE Special Use Permit[2] $990+$50/app Special Use Permit-extension $330 Special Use Permit-modification[2] $450+$50/app Site Plan Review-incl.PUD: Sketch Plan $330 Residential $330+$200/unit Residential-extension $200 Residential-modification $400 Non-residential $660+$130/1000 sf Non-Residential-extension $300 Non-Residential-modification $650 Subdivision-incl.PUD: TOTAL #LOTS Sketch Plan I $330 Preliminary Approval[2] Residential:1-5 lots $660+$50/app Residential:6-10 lots $990+$50/app Residential:11-20 lots $1320+$50/app Residential:21+lots $1650+50/app Residential-extension $330 Final Approval[2] Residential $1320+$175/lot+$50/app Non-Residential - $2000/lot+$50/app Final Approval Modification[2] Residential $330+$50/app Non-Residential $550+$50/app Final Approval Extension Residential $135 Non-Residential $330 Other: TOTAL #LOT/ACRE Post-Work Application Fee Add 50%App fee Lot Line Adjustment $350 Letter of Credit-modification or extension $440 Letter of Credit-collection upto 1%ofLoC Recreation Fee $2000/lotorunit Land Disturbance $660+$55/acre SEORA EIS Review(Draft&Final) TBD Legal Noticing if PB requires Public Hearing $50/app [1] Fees are based on per structure,except where noted. $325.00 TOTAL DUE [2] Legal ad required;includesCity processing and publishing For Administrative Use Total Paid at Intake Revised Fee Balance Due _/_/_Balance Paid Staff approval_ (..** I -=-:z N W P m P U Z] • n (n 'D O T• T •• N D` I . x wi O o z o5Tin , Oo Ifq z < m CmxODOD7Rm, a n o Z Z =o m = Z O > o0.�J m i m n f^) m A O > 0.-J D 1. �`I 0 O O to �O m �f]m Z 2 ", 0 0 0 0 r -ar zZz N D m O Z ZJ Z 73 .. ,.b � Z 2Z0000 m � Z � w z N o o 741 I cnt ° si- c n > - /) (/) 11 N r > > m ma z Z I I Z „ Tri- -< -< -1 rn O w D D qq iH � 000 � C m _nnmw � o DomDHHm � DODD 4'6'm D O D o < � arnm n zDm -1W �icA 7° D n WDm � D � zD3 n -i - ° nrn co .° rn z rncz7- oNivo p trl ZXz �c, t � Ci � DOo Zm � 03 0 o w * m x I . rn � m T o. ZoT < � oxj Z p o NRTn M AI 20 I CI r” oo 1::-- .p mor '< = o O 2. m Co 0 > N mzr z, 0 )3n o c7) 1:1 /31zm 1T p0 ,= czi — — __ oo -1 non EWER LINE r) N m© - �IVA�AN� ;� o Oz c I �° 26.32' x' - - - - I j20 rn WI 6\ t." 0 3 N4470 °59'03"►N E' �G 1 VINYL FENCE 1 ALONG PROPERN LINE y 1 n _ n tootc,:a...ni OX- ) �Immnz00 1o °�'� � zcn � � 0 �> i o ° v c z z o 1 n o z rn m czi n c.n O y Z Z CCT) ID_n I c c) I � oyn �o Z 'a � c.n ? 1 Lin A oclo Cn 1 20 _ .7'1CZ 'a \ % N M n z On I as m ml 1 1 --_,, \ N 1�T1 0 01 PZ n \cz -1 -2 °I m 1 IQ Iv O r - z n -n ci ° tel 1.1:.ROOF O.H ti- 1 r� v Y O I 1 c, n 0 1 D -2Zm Z ' m 5r xTrn pOpr- P �1 ' rn \o h \ � yx3z � 1.'r p a =i n 1 Z m -I p co I� n N V z o a 1 OZn ` n rooCn" y WNCn`= 5 N �Na_ �mmm z0 D moc� D o oomm -I73Xm ❑� 73oXC �, mcnmm�G; q Z X <X h'., O p clip D ❑znTJ . = zDmG , Z ,\ I .: mA -m zOz 0O ❑�-< H-< I own -IA's- �127t � -+ -i _ —I D m o Z O 0Fmzm m 0) xmm mp- ❑y X ' oI o _ -♦ II 1 11 w0 m mz0= z ..H > ZI >rz O-a rn oI 3.0 � 3 0. m �C)D 700 000. WZ Ill __ ♦♦♦ t\\\ m W WILcn� Z C�Om �J�= Z7S N 2 I+ I OOF� ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ I 1 K cn�cn0 D m DGm 10 m m , Cn z co -I *px 0071 F off ♦♦♦♦♦♦ I 1 c, D ❑ m73D 173 ♦♦ D'--1 L \ -I -INC co xzG z0_< coz ♦♦♦♦ ♦ ` I m oz00 m mow❑ 0-0 (.00 �❑ IL II I � 30 m � 73 Z�O� D co- n ZmH . H co o 1 I A m o N❑D0- z - - m ,Zm O 1 I \ I 1 z N� m m 1 0 m ^ o 1 1 O❑ m 0 0 ` o 7.3 -I03zZ D X73 . cozy O • z I11 I z ^' DmOH Dm � cow- Z I m Ar- mmO- m C)—0 "'73071 M 5 0 7J 4-;1-° < I A t:'1 (1) m cr C) 1- m 0073 Ozm ❑ A I 1 0 =mm= m mcm WY�nL d I 11 �` II 1 11 mom z �HW DAG I ` n N o` I 71 CnwCZ 0 Do- ❑. D � �N cNW� m �- z 0: 0 G 0 I c�mrn Vt ❑ ornO W-0'J H z00 'a>m ❑ I = I I +' nrnA I 1 zD O • ooh I ` m n'73z H Omm I : m � I 1 ai m Dm D❑� m I � P -6o \\T 7Jm > cnD H>D- m o11 ~ z� TmIzy 73 HH 50 xi 1 `N �'c�nII Emrm o fir- z c m AI c o mm I m7371D 1 < z HD m o I o11 0 ` II 1 �zmm m m� rnm II o11 020 ❑ ❑c �.0 73 11 II 1 mei_ oz m< co o o I` I � 0 m E m � z 11 " � r0 �zD � z CDn� W f� I mm- X m ❑ H= m A I II� II I- m m I m0j m JO mcn m x n_ 0 1 2'� Kr rn -1 m ~ z = 1000011.- > m13m z oN❑ y y cz' I _ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ' 'oma D ;1 c) 0 1 1 ♦ ♦ m`-7,n LH�— Ao Z Z D o D X i m i 11 ♦♦♦===♦♦_♦♦ _ _ 1. O V C - - m • I ♦♦♦♦ �� G 5 -fBAGK LINE \-0 \ - • cn o u.6't I ♦♦♦ ,r n m�` 'j �5, 6UILDIN E . . . - I-II '! ' _- 4 n 2O,t-g3-1 p 020' ED STONE ' _ , , SIDEWALK m s�� �7t n x 70 z rn CRUSH coGRE •n 4 • • 2:..-4.4",,N10:4°>•_4; .. 7.4't • 14-�j�... I+ 4 p 4 • HO IP Cn Z IECENTLY 1- DEWALK 4 HO e• n O4 • N 4 CONCRETE HO 00 O A GRANITE CURB • •a a• O ►• Y APRO T 1.21 000000` • 4. . .H &--- --------.4 CRETE AVE', 0000 , HO CON • oe�aoo .. ' oo; • . -44i • HO 0 , C• ,.� OF OAS• MAIN LOCATION HO PAINTED HO f cz------------------HO \ - S'rZI ttld G Ilt VOYW W W S OFFICE ER MAIN WAT PER CITY ENGINEER, W APPROX. W {.� 40 'W ( , � ti ---------------- \'444....------------------ —.I .\ H F "UNAIITHDRIZED ALTSRATION CITY OF: SARATOGA SPRINGS PROPOSED PLOT PLAN OF THE LANDS OF OR ADDITION TOA SURVEY Q NORTHEAST LAND SURVEY RV EY &® '9 MAP BEARING A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR'S SEAL IS COUNTY OF: SARATOGA,N.Y. PETER A. SPARAGNA & MARGARET BONAVENTURA a LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, P.C• A VIOLATION OF SECTION . 72739. SUB-DIVISION 2 OF SCALE: =5' DEED INSTRUMENT N0. 2018031266 TAX ID. N0. 165.58-3- = 7 rn THE NEW YORK STATE rn EDUCATION LAW." DATE: APRIL 5,2021 NO. 14 CHERRY STREET - "ONLY COPIES FROM THE P.O. BOX 2 140, MALTA, N.Y. 12020, PARADE GROUND VILLAGE ORIGINAL OF THIS SURVEY CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS SARATOGA COUNTY NEW YORK LAND sURVEY & Ph: (5 18) 899-7339 FAX: (5 18) 899-7340 IMPRESSION OF THE LAND MARKED WITH AN PROD.NO.: 18-075 0 LAND DEVELOPMENT EMAIL: NORTHEAST NELANDSURVEY.COM SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED DATE RECORD OF WORK: DRN: CHECK APPR: SEAL ORA RED INK SEAL DWG.NO.: 21-029 GONsuLTANrs, P O. SHALL BECONSIDERED TO �, BE VALID TRUE COPIES." DRAWN BY: J.R. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part I. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item. please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 —Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: 14 Cherry Street Saratoga Springs NY-Area Variance for Construction of Entry Way Addition Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 14 Cherry Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Brief Description of Proposed Action: Construction of a 50 square foot addition for purposes of entryway from Cherry Street frontage with second floor porch above. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 518-281-1386 Peter Sparagna E-Mail: peter.sparagna@gmail.com Address: 14 Cherry Street City/PO: State: Zip Code: Saratoga Springs NY 12866 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑✓ ❑ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s)name and permit or approval:Saratoga Springs Building Department ✓ 3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? .05 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 50 sq ft.acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? .05 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. m Urban n Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial n Commercial m Residential (suburban) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify): El Parkland Page 1 of 3 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑✓ ❑ NO YES 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ✓ NO YES 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ❑ b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ✓ c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑ action? 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ❑ n 12. a. Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the El 1-1 State Register of Historic Places? 0 El b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: Page 2o1 3 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid-successional ❑Wetland m Urban m Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑ 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES ❑✓ ❑ 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, ❑ a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ✓ b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ✓ If Yes,briefly describe: The addition will connect to the existing stormwater system. 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility? If Yes,describe: 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: The attached map shows the location of the remediation sites,none of which are actually adjacent to the property. I I ✓ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor/name: /- - Date: � ?_/0 Signature: {�e.'CCa' J�C+•�0. (\,C'.� Title: PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 EAF Mapper Summary Report Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:39 AM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist 1,,5 5w1+_5 5 r �`1 project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental •i', = t 31 1,j I -i5 5'=-1-57 assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are 1 ';`i T'1 '165 , answered bythe EAF Mapper.Additional information on anyEAF IuJ 5:�-5-'1.1 i :5•r,-f 1"I PP f i i t�;-5 i 1i15.5;;;.5 -(•.t"' question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although ' 143.5,,5P,-5,-2, -165.5'°-5=I.. the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to 1 ..1,35.5:',75 :2' DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order iri•5 : is to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a 1,,5 i 5 ;I 1 - !'S 5,,-5 substitute for agency determinations. i rt 571655$'5.7,4 1655-'a-y- , li + r:,_1 ', iI 5.5 1-55 1]tt:ce:., Moattr�al i5 ' =1'1 . I[15,,5I2. fih• 1 ;5., 'S; Saratoga $piing$1 1 -9 2.'1'1 -�� .5. 5., :1 S�5 , - , il"i.5 12 S Tot rltitC :t(35:5 5 I6-5.1 G,r„ l 1 t p,_ 1••. I .1', i Jc i A,slxupy ` : ''� i ( 1r_firolt 5 , - 165.57.5!.3,-,s-2 ,>>3 � -+ p �C� ra��ridan�a 'I 65 `� 1U 1 7 42 15 �� -165 ,'; ` 15 i-4 • riew York 1�5+: 111 I 5.6i�, ' 11. - I 1 1 , I o5 :-c8 2 15 I c , i,R' 9 i:4-165 I -1 t t'e 12 ii mti iftWbist3h Philadtiphla 3a iill 21 1371 {�11 I,rKEI l Tf',a1�Fi�f' E`!iJa1 an f IEII Esn I tni �,Ha1i(1 I +in<l Esn, ErlEF�ITP. ('.IRCan Esn lapin•I lE71 Esti China (hong K.3nrll Esti • Koi -Esti }jlht�ft.Ir.1 r.� �(� f?Sd�#tvi�T+_rtitn��eltor . attcl _' pro nirntt cr,Sb?Ar.1aDltnhi -r iRI cl(]t 1 GIS User Conlin unit. • Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental .No Area] Part 1 /Question 12a [National or State `No Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites] Part 1 /Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes Part 1 /Question 13a [Wetlands or Other No Regulated Waterbodies] Part 1 /Question 15[Threatened or No Endangered Animal] Part 1 /Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] 'Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 /Question 20 [Remediation Site] Yes Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report Environmental Remediation Near 14 Cherry Street _ . • *Sara toga 46, 4 - ti Ie I t 511r gtOrt St ,± .. 9 114,4 ., ;. t � r rF t _ - ��yF J l April 27, 2021 1:9,028 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi Ir r' 1 1 I ' ' I ' I l 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km Sources:Esri,HERE.Garmin.Intermap,increment P Corp..GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong).(c)OpenStreetMap contributors.and the GIS User Community Author:John Cannie Not a legal document Exhibit "A" -- SARATOGA COUNTY —STATE OF NEW YORK tf~ `, SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 4 Alio L" CRAIG A.HAYNER �� I ry, `tis `,--r0` 40 MCMASTER STREET, BALLSTON SPA, NY 12020 COUNTY CLERK'S RECORDING PAGE ***THIS PAGE IS PART OF THE DOCUMENT-DO NOT DETACH*** III I 1 111 1111 1 III 111 BM 11111 I I III Recording : Pages 15 .00 Cover Sheet Fee 5 .00 Recording Fee 20.00 Cultural Ed 14.25 Records Management - Coun 1.00 Records Management - Stat 4.75 INSTRUMENT #: 2018031266 RP5217 Residential/Agricu 116.00 RP5217 - County 9.00 Receipt#: 2018212221547 Names 0. 50 Clerk: TG TP 584 5 .00 -- Rec Date: 10/18/2018 11: 26:49 AM Doc Grp: D Sub Total : 190. 50 Descrip: DEED Num Pgs: 4 Transfer Tax Transfer Tax 2100.00 Partyl: EGER DAVID C Party2 : SPARAGNA PETER A Sub Total : 2100.00 Town: SARATOGA SPRINGS Total : 2290. 50 **** NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A BILL **** ***** Transfer Tax ***** Transfer Tax #: 1745 Transfer Tax Consideration: 525000.00 Transfer Tax 2100.00 Total : 2100.00 This page constitutes the Clerk's endorsement, required by section 316-a (5) & 319 of the Real Property Law of the State of New York with a stamped signature underneath. ett(i 1412- Record and Return To: If. 6 ' Saratoga County Clerk PETER SPARAGNA 64 ADIRONDACK RD HADLEY, NY 12835 I LE-cis-(25u7 WARRANTY DEED WITH LIEN COVENANT THIS INDENTURE made this 15th day of October 2018 azikR,en, David C. Eger, residing at 240 Mark Twain Lane, Rotonda West, Florida 33947 Peter A. Sparagna and Margaret Bonaventura, as husband and wife, residing at 64 Adirondack Road, Hadley, New York 12835. aa, n, enz a,e,car,.a-. D(.I;neooaX .that the party of the first part, in consideration of One ($1.00) Dollar lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration paid by the parties of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the parties of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the parties of the second part forever, See attached Schedule A Being the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part from DCE Construction& Development Corp. by deed dated May 23, 2000, recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk's Office on May 23, 2000 in Book 1550 of Deeds at page 651. g ,ez with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises. eSQAvvQ,Q, tQ. Ada the premises herein granted unto the parties of the second part, his successors and/or assigns forever. Cn.a the party of the first part covenants as follows: giirdt, That the parties of the second part shall quietly enjoy the said premises; $ecana, That the party of the first part will forever'1t the title to said premises; aud, The party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for 2018031266 10/18/2018 11:26:49 AM 4 Pages RECORDED DEED Saratoga County Clerk .14 the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. 541 lU i rnea.e, , the party of the first part has dul e -cuted . dee• - day and year first above written. i avid C. Eger State of New York ) ss: County of Saratoga ) On the 15th day of October in the year 2018 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared David C. Eger, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individuals whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument,the individuals, or the person upon behalf of which the individuals acted, executed the instrument. Notary Public ALISA M.DALTON Notary Public,State of New York No.5073177 Qualified in Saratoga and ba -Couritieb' Commission Expires ; _ iPtu. ,4 A.et i va .cLuc(2-d Schedule A All that tract or parcel of land, situate in the City of Saratoga Springs, County of Saratoga and State of New York, and being a parcel of land known as part of lot No. 38 and Lot No. 39 on a survey and map of village lots laid out by James N. Marvin and others in 1867 in the village of Saratoga Springs, in the County of Saratoga and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Cherry Street at its intersection with an alley on the south line of Cherry Street, and from thence running westerly along the south line of Cherry Street forty-one (41) feet to the northeast corner of a lot of land formerly owned by one Carrie Watts; thence southerly along the east line of said Watts land sixty-eight(68) feet; thence easterly along the northerly bounds of land of John Kane,twenty-seven(27) feet to an alley;thence northerly along the west side of said alley seventy-three(73) feet to the place of beginning. The above referred to map was filed in the Saratoga County Clerk's Office on November 30, 1878 as Map EE-63. The above premises are also described as follows: All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York, bounded and described as follows: to wit: Lot No. 14 in Section 10, Block B as shown on the Assessor's Map of the Inside Tax District of the City of Saratoga Springs,New York. Being the same premises assessed to J. &E.M. Adams on the 1965 Tax Roll of the said City of Saratoga Springs,New York. Exhibit "B" Exhibit "B"—14 Cherry Street III \ t, -, MI III MN UEI MN MI ■. ■■ .. = - z ;« _ - - ii- iiiiiiimiriiii , 11 _____ _ _ $. Ill 11 -- -_- 11 11 �� - - y ' L . E aw NM .E } I •M ;: z �i ! e `t A R ___-___„___ .----,....„ \ _moi _ oilli..1, , _____„:, ______,_____:_- _ ri___„_ - /f _ _ — _—________ . ;.-_---:_-____-_-_:__----- --_-_--,----_ __ ---___- _____- IT:- ii, 1 _-_-----------_-_,.. l_i \ -1 Ir 1111� I f - II Il'II r ___ -i L, _ i , E r 4 i -, Exhibit "C" 39Iq- MP�AT0G 'S! ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o As CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS -7.r ' -,T City Hall,474 Broa6uay Saratopn Springs,New Yoth 12866 coRPoaaco`9` 5i8-587-3550 518-587-6512 Fax IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Michele Coons 14 Cherry Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 14 Cherry Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 165.58, Block 3, Lot 7, inside district, on the Assessment Map of said City. WHEREAS,the appellant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City,as amended,to construct a new single family residence building with a three-car garage on the first floor in an Urban Residential-4 district and due public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 24th day of February 1999. The area variance for construction of a new single family residence building with a three-car garage on the first floor with the following relief: From To front yard setback 25 feet 5 feet • side yard setback(east) 20 feet zero feet side yard setback(west) 20 feet 2 feet total side yard setback 45 feet 2 feet maximum lot coverage 20 percent 50 percent minimum first floor area of principal building 1,200 square feet 840 square feet as shown on the submitted plans be granted for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty which would result in significant economic injury if the variance was not granted because the subject property could not be improved in any conceivable manner,consistent with its existing permitted use,without area variances. 2. The applicant has demonstrated this action is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that this variance maintains the almost identical lot coverage which exists with the structure currently on the site. 3. The granting of this area variance will not have an adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood because the granting of this variance will result in an improvement to the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The following condition must be met: gutters must be installed and directed to a discharge in the southern portion of the property and away from the western property line. Dated: February 24, 1999 Adopted by the following vote: 6 Ayes;0 Nay ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 2— I— 7/ &,4c/ /6,,,,. Date Chair. I hereby certify the above to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs on the date above - tioned, six members of the Board being present. ���,u,{/ / /f97 �/ Date Secretary Exhibit "D" P* ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1998 CITY COURT ROOM 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Richard Dunn, Secretary David Harper, Chair Cynthia Hollowood Ronald Kim Marjorie Meinhardt L. Clifford VanWagner, Vice Chair ABSENT: Harry MacAvoy ALSO PRESENT: Tony Izzo, ZBA Attorney CALL TO ORDER David Harper, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 011* NEXT MEETING Board members agreed the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, December 9, 1998. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 14, 1998, MEETING MINUTES L. Clifford VanWagner moved and Richard Dunn seconded to approve the October 14, 1998, meeting minutes as written. Ayes all. 1697 RAMOS,JILL/SPRATTLNIG, RODERICK (180 Lake Avenue) This is an application for an extension of an area variance to construct a wrap around porch in an Urban Residential-3 district. Appearing before the Board was Jill Ramos, applicant. Jill Ramos said this was simply an extension of a previous variance. She said there had been some scheduling problems with the contractor as well as some financial concerns, therefore, the project had been delayed. David Harper asked if there had been any changes in the neighborhood. Jill Ramos said no. L. Clifford VanWagner asked when work might begin. Jill Ramos said they would begin work in the spring. Richard Dunn asked if there were any changes in the design. Jill Ramos said no. ,,.ft. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 1998 David Harper opened the public hearing.There being no one wishing to speak,David Harper closed the public hearing. 1704 MACKEY, ,TOHN & KIM (27 Beacon Hill Drive) This is an application for an area variance to maintain the new residence as constructed in a Rural Residential-1 district. David Harper reported that the applicant had failed to notify nearby property owners, therefore, this application would be carried over to the December meeting. 1701 MOLTENI, ANDREW & CATHERINE (146 State Street) This is an application for an area variance to construct a two-story addition in an Urban Residential-1 district. Appearing before the Board was Susan Davis & Don Davis, architects and Andrew & Catherine Molteni, applicants. Susan Davis said this home was expanded approximately five years ago (kitchen and family area). She said the existing three bedrooms are somewhat small and they now wish to enlarge those rooms. She said they attempted several variations which all fit into the setbacks,however,for many reasons, (loss of light, loss of greenspace, angling the garage, etc.) they simply did not work. She said this ow is a simple house and they wanted to keep the addition simple. She said this proposed addition would add two bedrooms,a bathroom and a garage. She pointed out that there is an evergreen buffer and those evergreens will remain. She said that particular neighbor has no concerns with this proposal. David Harper asked if the proposed setbacks included the overhang. Susan Davis said yes. David Harper clarified that they were asking for side yard setback relief from 12 feet to 5 feet and total side yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet. Susan Davis said yes. L. Clifford VanWagner asked when the applicants acquired this home.Andrew Molteni said in 1987. Richard Dunn asked if it would remain a single family. Susan Davis said yes. Richard Dunn asked on whose property were the evergreen trees. Andrew Molteni said he thought they were on the property line. David Harper opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak,David Harper closed the public hearing. 1703 COONS, MICHELE (14 Cherry Street) This is an application for an area variance to construct a new two bedroom single family residence building in an Urban Residential-4 district. Appearing before the Board was Donald Zee, attorney representing the applicant and Michele Coons, applicant. 2 0•. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday,November 18, 1998 Donald Zee said this is a corner lot and they are proposing to construct a residence with a three-car garage. David Harper pointed out that one of the neighbors, Steve Mercier has a rectangular structure on that lot and asked why this proposed home was not rectangular. Donald Zee said the dimensions for this proposed home are 30'x28'. David Harper asked why this proposed structure was square. Donald Zee said there were some concerns expressed by Geoff Bornemann, City Planner, on maintenance of the alley. He said they have tried to move this structure away from the alley to allow for better maintenance. He said currently there is about 30 inches to Marvin Alley. L. Clifford VanWagner asked what was the dimension of the existing building. Donald Zee said he was not sure, but the new structure would be five feet from the alley. David Harper asked about the garage entrance and whether there had been any consideration on having access from Marvin Alley. Donald Zee said no. He then submitted letters of support from James Kuntsler, 47 Franklin Street and DeVall &DeVall, 59 Franklin Street. L. Clifford VanWagner again asked what was the foot print of the existing structure. Donald Zee said he thought it was about 32'x26'. L. Clifford VanWagner asked if the applicant was sure that three cars would fit into this proposed structure. Michele Coons said yes. David Harper asked if there would be three separate doors. Donald Zee said the door would be like the doors that are next A" i door. L. Clifford VanWagner asked if any consideration had been given to having only two bays. Michele Coons said no. Both L.Clifford VanWagner and Ronald Kim expressed their concern that three cars might be too tight for this building. David Harper asked if this was a two-bedroom apartment. Michele Coons said yes. David Harper clarified that this was a single dwelling. Michele Coons said yes. Richard Dunn asked about the requested setbacks. Donald Zee said they were requesting a front yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet on Cherry Street; 20 feet to 5 feet on Marvin Alley and on the west side from 20 feet to 2 feet. There was some concern as to whether this was two front yards and two side yards. Board members suggested that a survey be done in order to clarify some of the issues. Donald Zee noted that the plans which were submitted with the application had since changed and they have shifted the building after talking to Geoff Bornemann. David Harper said it would be difficult to grant this request without specific plans,accurate dimensions and exact setback requests. David Harper asked why it was necessary to have a three-car garage for a two-bedroom unit. Michele Coons said she lives on Franklin Street and she would park her car in this new structure. David Harper asked if this building was parallel with the side lot. Donald Zee said it would be parallel with Cherry Street. 3 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 1998 Marjorie Meinhardt asked whether the requested setbacks included the overhangs. The applicant said yes. Because of the questions/concerns previously expressed, the Board agreed to continue this application to the December 9 meeting. 1694 GORMLEY,ELIZABETH (71 Church Street) This is an application for use and area variances to install a wall sign on the east facade of the building in a Commercial-1 district. Appearing before the Board was Elizabeth Gormley,applicant. Richard Dunn read into the record the letter from James Gold, Chair of the Design Review Commission, dated November 9, expressing their concerns. Elizabeth Gormley said the meeting with the Design Review Commission on November 8 did not go well. She said there seemed to be too many issues/concerns from the DRC. She said the rules expressed by the DRC seemed a bit arbitrary. She said her existing sign is not distasteful and it is a good sign. She said the DRC suggested a freestanding sign, however, she was not interested in erecting a freestanding sign. She said the DRC wants a pedestrian friendly sign, however,this was not a pedestrian friendly area since cars are driving at 40 mph. She said lowering her sign would not make this a pedestrian friendly area. She said she wanted to encourage people to park in the parking lot and access the building through the side. L. Clifford VanWagner asked if she would be willing to remove the sign from the side of the building and place it on the front. Elizabeth Gormley said no because it was too big for the front. She said it was also not possible to lower this sign on the side of the building because of snow concerns. She said if forced to take the sign down from the side of the building she would then simply not have a sign. She said she wants this sign located on the side of the building over the principal access. She pointed out that there are other buildings throughout this community with signs on the side. L. Clifford VanWagner asked about the mural that she mentioned at the last meeting. Tony Izzo, said murals were permitted as long as there was no advertisement included within the mural. David Harper opened the public hearing. Susan Davis, 309 Nelson Avenue, said she is quite familiar with this area of the City and felt that this was a good sign for this building. She said she supported the sign on the side of the building and it would not be harmful to the community. Richard Dunn pointed out that Dugan's has a sign on the side and asked how she would feel if that sign was raised. He said this could bring many requests to have signs on the sides of buildings as well as above the first floor. Susan Davis said this was an attractive sign and it is too big to be lowered. 4 Exhibit "E" dGp S Bill Moore r , `°� Chair CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Keith B.Kaplan Q Y� . sz ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Vice Chair to '• to 0 Adam McNeill T l t CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Secretary SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 fames Heli Susan Steer PH)518-587-3550 Fx)518-580-9480 CENTENNIAL WWSARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG Brad Cheryl GallagherW Oksana Ludd,alternate Rebecca Kern,alternate #2957 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF RE_CiEir:' Anthony Maney 18 Cherry Street and 38 Marvin Alley MAR :.1' k DO • Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT From a determination'of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 18 Cherry Street and 38 Marvin AIley in the City of Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel numbers 165.58-3-11, 165.58-3-39 and 165.58-3-40 on the Assessment Map of said City.The Applicant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to demolish an existing four-unit residence and permit the construction of eight residential units in three townhouse buildings in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on March 5 and 19,2018. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the Applicant with detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the community,I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum front yard setback: • Townhouse 1 (Cherry) 25 ft. 2 ft. 23 ft. (92%) Min.side yard: Townhouse 1 20 ft. 11.4 ft. 8.6 ft. (43%) • Min.total side yard setback: 45 ft. 41.4 ft. 3.6 ft.(8%) ' Townhouse 1 Min.front yard setback: 25 ft. 8 ft. 17 ft. (68%) Townhouse 2(Marvin) Min.front yard setback: 25 ft. 83 ft. 16.7 ft.(67%) Townhouse 3 (Marvin) Min. side yard setback: 20 ft. 11.7 ft. 8.3 ft.(42%) Townhouse 2 Min.side yard setback: 20 ft. 8.3 ft. 11.7 ft. (59%) Townhouse 3 parking: Three spaces Min. avg. lot width: 100 ft. 72.3 ft. 27.7 ft. (28%) Townhouse 2 Min. avg. lot width: 100 ft. 74.6 ft. 25.4 ft. (25%) Townhouse 3 Max.principal buildings on 1 3 2(200%) one lot: Townhouses 1&2 (three-family residences) As per the submitted revised plans dated January 26,2018 or lesser dimensions,be Approved for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant.The Applicant originally submitted plans to construct 14 units in 2 four-story buildings. After multiple meetings with this Board,the Design Review Commission and the Planning Board,the Applicant made numerous modifications to his application which resulted in reducing the number of variances being requested. The current project includes 8 residential units in 3 townhouse buildings on an irregularly shaped lot. The shape of the lot and the desire to have all access to the lot from Cherry Street affected where the buildings and off street parking could be located and necessitated the request for several of the variances. The Applicant explained that the variances for minimum average lot width for buildings 2 and 3 could be eliminated if they were combined into one larger building,but that doing so would result in a building that was extremely large and not in character with the existing neighborhood. The new plans also increase the amount of the site that will remain permeable from the original plan. The Applicant also attempted to reduce or eliminate the need for the variances by purchasing the neighboring property; however the parties were not able to agree to a sale price. 2.The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties.The existing residence is in disrepair and the construction of these buildings and improvements on the site will significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. The lot is located in a transitional neighborhood with taller residential and commercial structures to the east and single and multifamily residential structures to the west. The Applicant explained that the 8 townhouses will be consistent with the character of neighboring structures including the City Square development across Cherry Street. This Board notes that the Design Review Commission issued a favorable advisory opinion with respect to the potential impacts on the Franklin Square Historic District. 3.The Board'fmds that the variances for the minimum front yard setback for all three buildings are substantial;however,this is mitigated by the fact that the front yard setbacks are similar to the existing structures located on Cherry Street and Marvin Alley. The Board finds that the variances for the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks for all three the lot and was done to avoid access from Marvin Alley to the off street parking. The variances for the minimum average Iot width for buildings 2 and 3 are substantial and could have been eliminated if those buildings were combined,however that substantiality is mitigated by the fact that by creating 2 smaller buildings instead of 1 larger one was done so that the mass and scale of the buildings on Marvin Alley would be minimized. The Board finds that the variance for principal building coverage at 4%or 16%relief is not substantial. Further,this resolution will be conditioned on the requirement that no additional accessory structures may be built on the lot. 4.The Applicant has demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district.The Board finds that the 8 residential units will not significantly impact the existing infrastructure. The site will remain 43%permeable which exceeds the district requirement of 15%, stormwater will be managed with state-of-the-art green practices including roof-top green terraces and new curbs,sidewalks,street trees and lighting will be added to Cherry Street and Marvin Alley. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant desires to construct 8 residential units,but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: No future accessory structures Consolidation of existing three lots into one lot required Notes: Planning Board Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review required Lot line adjustment required • Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 4(K.Kaplan,J.Helicke,C.Grey,B.Gallagher) NAYES: 0 RECUSAL: 1 (B.Moore) Dated:March 19,2018 This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per 240-8.5.1. (&) 11 V `111411L-' 3/20/2018 • Date Chair Exhibit "F" 14 Cherry and 49 Franklin 165.5 8-5-9.Y ,4 _ 165.59-1 .41144%64%.,, csior .41111%, , Of , 165.59-1-55 41114114044.0 Ir. %....„ 165.59-1-54 ■ lir t$ . 165,58,3-8 .''165458 -7 w 4 ., Saratoga Springs gr. "114111111111111sitilsi. / ' Ai t. i O 1,/ IF 165.58-340 $033034€003 illt - -, 111 e 165.58-3-18.2 165.58-3-18.1 r a 1- 165.59-1-4'- 1655-6-3-20 65.59-1- '165.58-3-20 4 AP q - Allit1651N1,75 April 23, 2021 1:564 0 0 0.01 0.01 mi 0 Counties Towns 2020 I r . ' 1 ' . ' . ti ' 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 km EJ Cities E Villages 2020 Labels NYS ITS GIS Program Office Exhibit "G" Exhibit "G"—Cherry Street Frontages ,If i.,offorel; • .--7,..--57 III „ r V Ili?11 ! 1 -. - ,0 0...I iu!lll lbl � � v � ll 41 ),/17',' ''--1, � t ♦ 1 of t FYI ■r -_ �� /i� .witt 1dlti ' vR f 1 ; S�d-: ` . . I.— 11r _ it _ y. .•..:. .. . T 43 { 4 • L f 1 ,y �'h 'J! ��+� .sem .. . '\ , ,• • / \\ ., .• , . , . , \ \ . . . , .•----- ' , . , 4 . . . r . 1, .,h ( . .. , ... ill,1 .. 1 1 • I -111EIV 311111111 V- . . 1 \ 1 , 1 - . i _ \ . _ . . . .. . . .. . .. , ' -• 1 _, 'f',---„- ',.-.'•-,‘',,;:'': ,..:.'. ''''',;:y.'''4410' "ii''/1411v. `1: \ i's...•,‘,_:1,,. ...,'-,,.:* .k:f''t.''',; , d.-4/r,. ,,,.- „,-,4'...: /1..'. • • ,,, ., . • ;. , ---,,,,.74%,,..N.•%. N ....„Ititik k 41, ., , , ---'-----__-... -----'---,' H . .. .1 , . :. .:2;," ' - '-•,:.:101.„li i"Jr , j . ..-. %. -1 -- - -- 2,1 --\,,,_ _.,,,,,,k ., :, , '1, .,, , .N.,,,,,, • .„ , ' i H _ 1 1 I '\ , :12.,z5..,i--;..::,.:-.:,. _:-... :- it ( L ,I . ,)%,,•t,,r A tra.- - ,1‘,„ Ars,,L-4‘.,;',.! al • Ail - ' - , 1 _ -5,,,,s,,-;,;--,-..*?,-,..--. „ _. ;-, 4:0 ,,,,..-?..Awr"IA --:-",-4.. • .'FFANI...•--. -401,:_z - ---- 1 _1 .._„_ •- -Vi. L . ', ', -NEE„,_-,•••/„.5,."-„,;.; -lis,;•:„:„.,.-,•.19.. ao, ' ---,,,..',.- ---1 1 . ' I 'I . illIl .•, I 1 . 1 • 11 1 . . 1 , 1 . 1 i Pi', !,,L• '''''.— . 11,3kr . A Ar[v , ' • •',. .' ' minion .,,,--70,;, -.-.,-....:','' , • ..,,,,,,,,, L! NI _.) I 'AL ;-,-1 ' ''• - ''''' t 1 .,• rieL__ ' i ... .......7,.i ...,.,.,':' --, 4.-- - _ - • , ---- 1 -.•,-- i „,h,4•,....• .A "`". -.'"- --- ',.71,.... / ';',::''''',.`'',: (3 ••,',. __ __ '''.-- • _ . . v'''.. , y- - _ . •- • .---„.- : . N'N''.............„,_ • .,• _ " N""......, II ....- ... ,, t t_ �,r , I" • Ii o ;1,,i I 1 ..,.. ...,,. ..„.,„,. .3..,,:., , ,1, , � 4.. . .. : - 1 d i • '''',,,,Or.,,:,,,,•7'.!•':' '' Sri. -•:•, ki, \ c ' . \ ' '' 'i'•". l''' 1116----;1'' II - > L NO 4111 Z.w • !. • 4 , ,. - ,. 14 CHERRY STREET AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION -NARRATIVE A. INTRODUCTION: The property that is the subject of this application is 14 Cherry Street, Saratoga Springs NY, Tax Parcel Id: 165.58-3-7 (the "Property"). The Property is a 2,305 square foot lot on the southwest corner of Cherry Street and Marvin Alley within the Urban-Residential 4 ("UR-4") zoning district. The Property is currently owned by Peter Sparagna and Margaret Bonaventura(the "Applicants"),who purchased the Property in 2018.A copy of the Applicants deed is attached here as Exhibit"A". The purposed of this application is to receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs ("ZBA") to construct a new fifty square foot entryway and second floor porch along the Property's northern lot line that fronts on Cherry Street. Pictures of the Property in its current state are submitted here as Exhibit"B" B. PROPERTY HISTORY: The Property, is of relatively small size and unique configuration with unparallel side lot lines. The Property has been established as an independent lot with its current boundaries since at least 1919 when a deed from George Tuck transferred the Property to Mr. and Mrs. Highbrown, the deed for which is recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk's office at Book 305 and page 322 (the"Tuck Deed"). The Property went through multiple conveyances over the years using the same property description contained in the Tuck Deed until the Property was purchased by Michele Coons in 1998,pursuant to a deed recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk's office in Book 1498 at Page 706. Subsequent to her purchase of the Property, Ms. Coons applied for and received area variances from the ZBA to enable her to construct a single-family residence with a three-car garage 1 on the first floor at the Property (the "1999 Variances"). A copy of the Notice of Decision for the 1999 Variances is submitted as Exhibit"C". Based upon the minutes from the ZBA meetings on the 1999 Variances, it is believed that prior to Ms. Coons purchase of the Property, there was a structure present that was solely used as a three-vehicle garage. A portion of those minutes are attached here as Exhibit"D"1.According to the contents of her application for the 1999 Variances, received under FOIL, the building was in disrepair and the proposed residence above the garage would pay for the costs of improvement while maintaining the three-car garage use. Further, the reason a three-car garage was installed was that Ms. Coons did not intend to occupy the Property herself, instead renting the residential unit and retaining one of the bays of the garage for her own use to park her car close to her Franklin Street home. See Exhibit"D". The 1999 Variances provided the owner with the ability to build a home on small lot, providing relief from front and side yard setbacks as well as the minimum lot size and minimum building coverage. Following the 1999 Variances, the current single-family home at the Property was constructed as approved and has remained in substantially the same condition ever since. The current home, although it has a Cherry Street address, does not provide for a traditional entryway along the Cherry Street frontage, and instead the three garage doors are what can be seen along the Cherry Street frontage—not a traditional street view for a residential use and not in line with other properties in the neighborhood. Further, without a traditional entrance on the Cherry Street frontage, pedestrian access to the Property occurs through the gated walkway off Marvin Alley, on which there is no sidewalk. 1 These minutes are from the initial ZBA meeting for the 1999 Variances held in November of 1998. It should be noted that the proposed building did change overtime in its dimensions when Ms.Coons was working with the ZBA for the approval. 2 The Applicants, retired senior citizens, purchased the Property in 2018, and have been performing work inside and outside the structure to make it their permanent residence. The Applicants wish to create a formal entrance to the Property along the Cherry Street frontage to enable pedestrian access directly from a sidewalk to the Property, provide a more harmonious streetscape with neighboring properties, and get rid of one of the three garages which are not necessary for the Applicants use of the Property. C. AREA VARIANCE ANALYSIS a. Variances Requested 1) Front Yard Setback Required: 5 Feet (as per 1999 Variance) Requested: 2 Feet Current Setback: 6 feet b. Area Variance Test 1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. The requested variance will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood or cause a detriment to neighboring properties. The addition will cause a desirable change to the neighborhood, as the entryway will improve the streetscape and make the Property look much more like a residential structure, which is the predominate use in the immediate neighborhood. Second, in a desire to show the ZBA that this variance is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, we have taken a survey of the neighboring properties on Cherry Street to show their current setbacks. 16 Cherry Street is the lot immediately to the west of the Property. As can be seen in the survey submitted herewith, the 16 Cherry Street Property has an entrance from the sidewalk on Cherry Street onto its porch. Although the measurements do not appear on the survey, the distance between the front of the porch and the lot line as shown is less than or at the most equal to the same two feet in distance from the proposed addition at the Property. As you go farther 3 West on Cherry Street, a condo development is in the final stages of construction at 18 Cherry Street. In order to receive a building permit for this development, the owners of 18 Cherry Street received multiple variances, including a front yard setback variance of 2 feet. See the Notice of Decision for 18 Cherry Street, dated March 20,2018 attached hereto as Exhibit"E". Additionally, 49 Franklin Street, the lot directly east of the Property after you cross Marvin Alley, has a very small setback along the Cherry Street frontage as shown in the aerial photo attached as Exhibit "F". Although the exact amount of the setback cannot be seen from the photo, it appears to be less than 5 feet for both the principal and accessory structure. Photos of the frontage for 49 Franklin, 16 Cherry and 18 Cherry are attached as Exhibit"G". It is clear from the survey of the surrounding properties on Cherry Street, that the Property would still be in conformance with its immediate neighbors if the front yard setback variance was approved. Further having an entryway that fronts on Cherry Street would improve the overall uniformity of the neighborhood and provide a safer pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the Property. 2) Whether the benefit sought by the Applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance: No, there is no other feasible method. The goal of providing an entrance to the Property off of the Cherry Street frontage with a second floor porch is not achievable by any land deals, as the City right of way cannot be changed. The Property is already a nonconforming lot when it comes to all of its setbacks, and in order to get enough space to have a usable porch,this additional variance is needed. 4 3) Whether the variance is substantial: Although the front yard setback variance is arguably substantial, as it requests a 60%relief from the current 5 foot setback, the Property is substandard when it comes to lot size in this zone, so variances are to be expected.Additionally, as noted above,the two properties directly to the west are both nonconforming when it comes to the front yard setbacks, and the proposed addition will provide for a nearly identical setback on this Property. 4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition on the neighborhood or district: There will be no adverse effects on the environment or physical conditions of the neighborhood caused by the variance. The proposed addition is adding only fifty square feet of building coverage to the Property, and the area where that is being installed was previously used for a driveway. As a result, there is no loss of greenspace at the Property. 5) Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created: Technically, the difficulty here was self-created, as the Applicants purchased the Property with knowledge of the applicable setback. However, self-created hardship cannot be used as the sole basis for denying a variance request. 5